Chief Justice Roberts Goes Nuclear, Activates Police Force Answerable Only to the Court Itself: And 3 Theories on Who the SCOTUS Draft Decision Leaker Might Be


It’s an unprecedented leak with an unprecedented aim — and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is taking unprecedented steps to get to the bottom of it.

In a media release Tuesday, one day after Politico first published a draft opinion from the court that indicated it would overturn Roe v. Wade, Roberts announced he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

In a media release Tuesday, one day after Politico first published a draft opinion from the court that indicated it would overturn Roe v. Wade, Roberts announced he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

(Here at The Western Journal, we’re staying on top of the fast-moving news regarding the Supreme Court’s biggest abortion case since Roe was decided — and what the leak means for the future of the court. If you support our news and analysis from a conservative, Christian perspective, please consider subscribing.)

Advertisement – story continues below

The draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservative justices, held the logic of the original Roe v. Wade decision was “extremely weak” and said the decision “was egregiously wrong from the start.” The ruling also attacked another abortion case — 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established the “undue burden” standard for abortion laws.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Even as Politico published the draft opinion, reporter Josh Gerstein acknowledged the breach that it represented:

“No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term,” he wrote.

In the media release, the Supreme Court acknowledged the authenticity of the draft opinion while stressing it was in no way final.

“Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case,” the release stated.

“Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

In a release, Chief Justice John Roberts stated the matter would go directly to the Marshal of the Supreme Court, a law enforcement official that answers directly to the court.

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,” Roberts wrote.

“The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law,” the statement continued.

“Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

“I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

The current Marshal of the Supreme Court is Col. Gail A. Curley, according to Fox News, who was appointed in May of 2021.

“As Marshal, Col. Curley will serve as the Court’s chief security officer, facilities administrator, and contracting executive, managing approximately 260 employees, including the Supreme Court Police Force, which provides security for the Justices, Court staff, visitors, the building, and surrounding grounds,” the Supreme Court stated in a media release when she was appointed last year.

“Col. Curley will call the Supreme Court to order in argument sessions, maintaining order and decorum during Court proceedings.”

And now, she’ll be charged with figuring out who leaked Alito’s draft opinion.

It’s unclear what other organizations will be involved in the investigation, although CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported it would “likely” involve the FBI.

According to Reuters, experts say that leaking draft opinions isn’t illegal in and of itself, given that they aren’t classified documents. However, the leaker may have committed an ancillary crime to obtain the opinion, like unauthorized use of a computer to obtain the file.
It could also lead to disbarment for the individual who leaked the document, if he or she is a practicing lawyer.
“This is the most egregious violation of confidentiality for a staff member or employee of the court that you can imagine,” University of California, Berkeley, law professor Orin Kerr told Reuters.

The leak appears to have been designed to put pressure on both the Supreme Court and/or Congress to somehow change the decision, either by swaying votes on the court or getting the Senate to pass a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade guarantee of abortion rights at the federal level.

What’s more, that pressure has come via mobs that resemble nothing so much as the “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests of 2020:

Constitutional scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Twitter post that the leak represents “the greatest crisis that Chief Justice John Roberts has faced in his tenure on the Court.”
“If this is a true copy of the draft opinion it is hard not to view this as a malicious act. What is the motivation of releasing such a decision? The only intent of such a leak is to trigger a response from outside of the Court,” he tweeted. “It is a breach of the most fundamental obligations and traditions of the Court.”
It’s a breach that, one hopes, will mended from the inside — if only to preserve whatever integrity remains in the court’s decision-making process. Source

Here Are the 3 Theories on Who the SCOTUS Draft Decision Leaker Is


The publication of a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion overturning the monumental Roe v. Wade abortion decision has spurred political chaos.

The leaked document, published by Politico on Monday, is unprecedented in the modern history of the Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court is known for confidentiality, with justices as a rule loathe to voice political controversy or make the body’s internal deliberations public.

No hard evidence ascertaining the identity of the individual responsible for the leak was published in Politico’s report.

Three possibilities seem to be the most likely, judging from the leak’s timing, content, and circumstances.

The motivations of a liberal law clerk or SCOTUS staffers to release the document would be readily apparent.

Even if the leaker faced disbarment or criminal charges, he or she would stand to reap the benefits of a book deal and progressive “heroism” (perhaps even a tenured professorship at a left-wing law school).

The leak is likely to set up Stalinist harassment and attacks on the court’s justices, who are accustomed to ruling independently of the political partisanship treasured by the left.

And yet, as some liberals argue, a conservative staffer who works for one of the court’s Republican-appointed justices could also have motives.

The leak may have been primed to solidify votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

With Chief Justice John Robertspotentially unwilling to support the full termination of the 1973 ruling that created and enshrined a legal right to abortion, the court’s conservative justices will have to decide it in a thin 5-4 majority.

Putting the justices on record now supporting the draft ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito could lock down their votes in an expected June ruling, preventing last-minute reassessments on a case of huge consequence.

And yet, it’s worth noting that the law clerks typically hired to work at the Supreme Court are known to be risk-averse and committed to legal processes to an extreme.

Even partisan ideologues gunning for a career in the political-legal establishment would have been hesitant to leak draft documents.

The leak could even have been made possible through a compromise of Supreme Court computer systems, possibly by a foreign government. As some noted, one of the authors of the Politico piece was Alex Ward, a national security reporter. (The other author of the piece, Josh Gerstein, is Politico’s senior legal affairs reporter.)

foreign adversary working to radicalize American progressives through a combination of extremist disinformation and aggressive partisanship could’ve been responsible.
This would effectively distract the public from key national issues with a culture war in defense of a legally flawed and antiquated court ruling. Source

I will not venture to say who I believe may have leaked the SCOTUS Draft Decision, although my mind does wonder if this was a Leftist crime.

In our government, I have come to trust NO ONE.


2 thoughts on “Chief Justice Roberts Goes Nuclear, Activates Police Force Answerable Only to the Court Itself: And 3 Theories on Who the SCOTUS Draft Decision Leaker Might Be

  1. Mark V

    Gerstein already has connections with Sotomayor’s clerk and Obama is encouraging people to protest. Because of this and how he pulls the strings in this present administration, I would suspect him as the primary instigator and Sotomayor’s office as public enemy number one. We, who oppose this present illegitimate administration are considered “enemy of the state.” “…the One who is in you is greater than one who is in the world.”

Comments are closed.